The project aims at the consolidation, enhancement and dissemination of current

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JRC JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville) SERA (Support to the European Research Area) Seville, 20/12/2006 FOR-LEARN MUTUAL LEARNING CONSOLIDATION WORKSHOP IMPROVING THE USE OF FORESIGHT IN POLICY MAKING RESULTS FROM A DIALOGUE BETWEEN FORESIGHT PRACTITIONERS AND USERS SEVILLE 23 RD AND 24 TH OF NOVEMBER 2006, JRC-IPTS ROOM 116 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT OUTLINE This document serves to frame the debate within the FOR-LEARN mutual learning consolidation workshop on "impact of Foresight on policy making" on 23 rd and 24 th of November in Seville. In the first section the project background is briefly explained. The second section gives a more detailed account of the rationale behind the FOR-LEARN mutual learning workshops and provides an overview over the current series of workshops dealing with the issue of policy impact of Foresight. Section 3 gives the motivation behind picking up this particular topic of Foresight/policy interface as a focus for the mutual learning debate. The rest of the document is dedicated to present the outcomes of the mutual learning process. First (4.1) we discuss a set of functions Foresight can have for policy according to the FOR-LEARN debate and how they can be of use in specific phases of the policy process. Section 4.2 lists the main insights generated on how these contributions can be achieved by Foresight. Some aspects of particular relevance are outlined in more depth. Finally in section 5 the guiding questions for the workshop are introduced. 1. WORKSHOP FRAMEWORK: THE FOR-LEARN PROJECT This workshop is being organised in the context of the FOR-LEARN project. The FOR- LEARN project is part of a wider portfolio of activities of the European Commission s Directorate General (DG) Research launched during the Sixth Framework Programme: the European S&T Foresight Knowledge Sharing Platform (KSP) 1. The KSP aims at better interconnecting and supporting Foresight programmes, initiatives and institutions in close co-operation with all relevant actors in Europe and, when necessary, orienting them towards common problematic, at inter-regional, trans-national or European level. The FOR-LEARN project is one of the central activities of the KSP. It is developed by the Foresight group 2 of the Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies (IPTS) of the European Commission s DG Joint Research Centre (JRC). The project aims at the consolidation, enhancement and dissemination of current

2 Foresight knowledge. Furthermore it wants to make practical knowledge on how to carry out Foresight more accessible. Both objectives are followed through fostering the exchange of knowledge between Foresight practitioners, sponsors, users and other stakeholders. For this purpose the FOR-LEARN team is pursuing the following activities Improving access to existing Foresight knowledge and experience through the development of an online Foresight guide. Assisting people who want to embark in Foresight (especially within New Member States and Candidate Countries) through targeted support workshops and an online query system. Addressing current research needs in the area of Foresight through targeted mutual learning workshops among Foresight practitioners and users. The three legs of activities are closely interlinked through continuous feedback to achieve an ongoing learning cycle. Figure 1: The Foresight Learning Cycle formed by the three FOR-LEARN modules WP1 Online Foresight guide Feedback to update the guide Expertise for the support to practitioners Foresight Learning Cycle WP3 Mutual Learning Workshop WP2 Online Query Knowledge gaps This workshop is finalising a series of three mutual learning workshops dealing with the contribution of Foresight to policy making. In the following section the rationale and approach of the FOR-LEARN mutual learning workshops will be outlined. 2. THE FOR-LEARN MUTUAL LEARNING WORKSHOPS The Mutual Learning workshops are bringing together experienced managers, practitioners and/or users for focussed and in-depth discussions on specific topics of particular current relevance for the Foresight body of knowledge. The FOR-LEARN workshops are meant to function as a platform for the community to reflect on its experiences and improve its approaches. Therefore, high emphasis is placed on the close interaction with the community of Foresight practitioners and users in shaping the mutual learning process. The topics for the workshops are identified by the FOR-LEARN team either through monitoring the enquiries received via the query system or through direct 2

3 contacts with Foresight practitioners and users and close interaction with DG RTD. 3 Starting in December 2005 a series of three Mutual Learning Workshops has been addressing the impact of Foresight on policy-making. Each workshop was building on the outputs of the previous ones and has been taking the issues from a different perspective with a specific group of participants: The first workshop (December 2005) with Foresight practitioners as well as scholars from neighbouring fields set the frame for the issues at stake by revisiting the positioning of strategic intelligence tools in the policy making process in the light of recent insights from policy research and innovation studies. The second workshop (April 2006) with Foresight scholars and practitioners focussed on analysis of real cases, development of good practice guidelines and exploration of possible approaches of Foresight to link up closer with policy implementation with a particular attention to the adaptive Foresight concept proposed by Weber (2006). In the third workshop (September 2006), the insights of the previous workshops on the relationship between Foresight and policy-making were discussed with policymakers to capture their perspective on the issue. This consolidation workshop will finalise this series. It serves to present the consolidated and well formatted results of these three workshops to the community of practitioners and users that has been participating in the debate in order to: Capture further reactions especially from Foresight users to refine the good practice lessons and the analytical framework for understanding Foresight policy impact. Consolidating the use of the analytical framework developed in the mutual learning process as a common reference for the debate on and evaluation of policy impact of Foresight Fostering wide dissemination of FOR-LEARN insights Furthermore the FOR-LEARN team is using the consolidation workshop as a platform for jointly developing the focus for the next mutual learning process. This is of utmost importance for the success of the FOR-LEARN approach as FOR-LEARN can only function as a platform of self reflection for the community of Foresight practitioners and users if this community is actively involved in the shaping of the activities. 3 THE ISSUE: WHY RETHINKING THE IMPACT OF FORESIGHT ON POLICY-MAKING? During the last decade Foresight has become increasingly used as a strategic policy intelligence instrument. In many countries it is now well established as a key instrument to support policy-making in particular in the fields of research, innovation and technology policy but also in other policy realms. However, in the course of its development Foresight has undergone a number of conceptual changes. While early 3 Alternatively, the Mutual Learning workshops can be designed to deal with the specific needs of ongoing or planned exercises. This type of workshop is creating a space where newcomers to Foresight in need of support can benefit from the advice of more experienced practitioners to design, run and implement their own Foresight projects. These "bilateral support workshops" are not further discussed within this background paper. 3

4 Forecasting approaches adopted a rather linear understanding of technological development on the one hand and policy-making on the other, current Foresight theory is recognising the complexity and reflexivity of innovation processes and conceptualises policy making as a continuous reflexive learning process. It is no longer reckoned that technological trajectories can be easily forecasted nor is it taken for granted that innovation processes can be initiated or influenced in a straightforward manner through targeted research funding activities. Following these insights researchers and practitioners have increasingly been emphasising the role of Foresight as a process-oriented innovation policy instrument. In other words the focus has been shifting from the delivery of information on future developments as a base for priority setting to the mediation of self organisation among actors of an innovation arena. This has led to an increasing emphasis of the relevance of the Foresight process next to the actual formal product of the Foresight exercise. However, from the policy maker point of view, this development changes the perception of the actual contribution of Foresight to policy making. While classical Forecasting was able to claim a substantial input into the conceptualisation phase of research policy, the impact of Foresight on policy making is now spread over different phases of the policymaking process and much more difficult to pinpoint. After all, it is not traceable at first sight how policy making benefits from the Foresight process. This has lead to a kind of uneasiness among some practitioners regarding the credibility of Foresight as a policy support instrument. In order to convince policy makers who are, at the end of the day, the clients and sponsors for the majority of Foresight exercise to continue their engagement with Foresight it is necessary to convey clear messages on the usefulness and effectiveness of Foresight for policy-making. Furthermore, it is reckoned that only a clear conception of what kind of impact on policy making is intended will enable an adequate design of a Foresight exercise. Therefore, the clarification of the type of impact of Foresight on policy making appears as a necessary precondition for identifying good practice for Foresight design thus becoming a central element within the FOR-LEARN learning cycle. It appears therefore timely to exploit the large wealth of experience from process oriented Foresight practice of the last decade and to re-think the contribution of Foresight to policy-making in order to arrive at a new understanding on how Foresight is impacting on policy making and how this impact can best be achieved. 4 MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE DEBATE In all three workshops the debate was departing from an attempt to pinpoint the contribution of Foresight to policy making to then reflect on what are the conditions for Foresight to actually deliver these contributions. Although this distinction is somewhat artificial as both aspects are deeply intertwined and the debate often addressed both aspects at the same time in a holistic manner, the outcomes can somewhat be framed along these two perspectives: 1. What can Foresight contribute to policy making? 2. How can Foresight achieve these contributions? 4

5 4.1 What can Foresight contribute to policy making? In a first step the FOR-LEARN team proposed a conceptual framework to capture the benefit of Foresight for policy making by distinguishing functions Foresight is fulfilling for policy making. Starting from a rather simple framework that was discriminating between informing policy and facilitating policy implementation as the central functions the frameworks was refined substantially during the workshop series ending up with the set of functions summarised in table 1. Function Outcome Benefit for policy Informing policy Anticipatory intelligence Dynamics of change Future risks & opportunities Strengths & weaknesses of the current system for addressing future challenges (e.g. skills & competencies available) Visions for change Recommendations for action Stakeholders views Viewpoints and expectations in reference to a policy field New ideas from new channels Long term orientation Additional source for information (Based on a diversity of knowledge sources) Awareness of future challenges 5

6 Function Outcome Benefit for policy Facilitating policy Supporting policy definition Embedding participation into the policy-making process Within the targeted arena of change: Common ground Linkages & interfaces Combinations between elements (e.g. institutions, companies, people, knowledge, beliefs, technologies, products) Joint visions Learning platforms Soft coordination Awareness of policy objectives, strategy and constraints Feeling of ownership Distributed intelligence Shared information as an input to decision-making for various actors and stakeholders beyond policymakers Strategic options for policy making jointly generated with specific implementation body (e.g. ministry) Infrastructure for participatory governance Transparency of policy making process Understanding within society of fundamental changes such as emergence of knowledge society Value articulation Value change (in some cases) Better receptivity of actors for policy objectives due to ownership of results therefore easier implementation Enhanced capability to react to future challenges and evolve in phase with policy-making Specific Innovation policy: Better connectivity Better ability to react to change/to innovate (responsiveness) Direct support in strategy development and implementation Better identification of citizens with policy (legitimacy) Possibility to launch societal debate about central issues (also access to media via Foresight) 6

7 Function Outcome Benefit for policy Reorientating the policy system New configurations of policy making bodies around new conceptualisation of topics Better ability to address future challenges (e.g. necessary linkages between two ministries established) Table 1: Set of Foresight functions identified by FOR-LEARN mutual learning process As visualised in figures 2 and 3 these functions operate on different levels within the arena of change that is addressed by the Foresight exercise and are fulfilled by different aspects of Foresight. Policy Informing policy Foresight product Actors Foresight process Actors Facilitating policy implementation Actors Figure 2: Informing policy and facilitating policy implementation two central Foresight functions each operating in a specific mode Policy Adapted strategic options Strategy Phase Product: Informing Process: Facilitating Collective Foresight 7

8 Figure 3: Supporting policy definition a potential additional Foresight function From the policy making perspective not all of the functions are relevant in a certain stage of policy making but each function is bound to be of particular usefulness in a specific phase of the policy making process. Figure 4 gives a rough assignment of functions to policy making stages as it was developed in the FOR-LEARN mutual learning process. FORESIGHT Legitimacy, transparency Understanding of changes Visions Strategic options Receptivity of the system Agendasetting Strategy building Ex-ante impact analysis New ideas Implementation Evaluation Learning Figure 4: Relevance of Foresight functions at different stages of the policy process 4.2 How can Foresight achieve these contributions? Within the mutual learning workshops a common understanding emerged that Foresight can and should address several of these functions. However, it was stressed that not everything can be achieved simultaneously and with the same approach. It seems crucial that within Foresight design there is a clear understanding on which type of impact is being targeted within each particular Foresight activity. A possible approach suggested by Barré (2001) is to concentrate on specific policy needs in an exercise. Different types of Foresight exercises could be tailored to serve different functions for policy. Another approach is to tailor phases in the Foresight exercise in a way to fulfil several functions within the same exercise. To achieve this it was suggested to break down an exercise into different but closely related phases each targeting a specific type of impact. So e.g. a rather open and public panel debate that aims at policy facilitating could be complemented by a more targeted scenario building workshop with a smaller group of policy makers to derive strategic information. In this way, the overall exercise will be tailored towards optimum policy impact. 8

9 Diversity and level of Participation Large societal debate Phase IV: Making choices Citizen participation Stakeholder expert groups Phase II: Exploration Phase V: Implementation and coordination A few decisionmakers Phase I: Diagnosis Phase III: Strategic orientation From vision to action Diagnosis Vision How to get there + recommendations Measures, actions Figure 5: Illustration of an exercise tailored into several phases The following issues were considered of specific relevance for optimising Foresight policy contribution within the mutual learning process: Thorough analysis of policy context and careful positioning of Foresight within it Careful considerations of space of manoeuvre for shaping the future Involvement of policy client in the design phase Involvement of policy maker in the Foresight process Closer linkage with policy implementation Building a reservoir of knowledge Referring to choices and values For some of the issues different perspectives were expressed and documented by the FOR-LEARN team for further debate. Other issues were a consensus emerged were developed into best practice guidelines to be integrated in the FOR-LEARN online Foresight guide. The following paragraphs give a short summary of the main issues raised for each topic Adding a policy-definition phase The interface with the policy implementation phase is crucial for enabling Foresight to impact on actual policy making. There is a need to explore how Foresight can address this interface. The appropriate position of Foresight versus policy implementation has to be reconsidered in each specific case. There may well be exercises where this kind of 9

10 impact on policy decision making is of less relevance as other functions such as policy facilitating or value articulation are predominating. However, it is highly relevant for these exercises that are more directly aiming to support policy strategy building. A quite elaborated step forward in transmitting Foresight anticipatory intelligence into the policy implementation phase is the concept of adaptive Foresight (Weber 2006). The basic idea is to add a process cycle to complement Foresight with a phase of supporting policy definition where the results are translated into concrete strategies of a specific policy making body. A protected space in this phase will enable policymakers to open up their hidden agendas, e.g. explain their positioning towards other ministries. Thereby, it is possible to go beyond information provision to support forward looking counselling for policy making. By including such an implementation module exercises can be individualised ( adapted ) for different policymaking bodies but also for other organisations such as companies. In a way this is bridging the gap between informing, facilitating and embedding participation of civil society by creating this additional support to policy implementation or strategic counselling function. However it might be necessary to complement Foresight with approaches aiming at steering evolutionary processes towards specific objectives such as transition management (Kerkhof & Wieczorek 2005, Kemp & Rotmans 2004), if it is developing towards a tool for assisting policy implementation as well as conceptualisation. While the need to tackle the interface to policy implementation was shared among the Foresight practitioners there were also cautioning remarks. In particular it was mentioned that strategic counselling has an expert-driven tradition in the form of strategic consulting. In the case of Foresight, a participatory process would actually be feeding the more restrictive phase of strategic counselling. The transition between these two phases has to be carefully thought of. Also, Foresight has to protect its creative dimension which might be jeopardized if the whole of the exercise were to get more deeply involved in the daily business and constraints of policy implementation. In the framework of tailoring Foresight discussed above this could be achieved by actively providing open spaces for unrestricted creativity. Moreover, it can be expected that the provision of specific spaces for strategy as foreseen in adaptive Foresight may ease the provision spaces for creativity Analysis of the policy context A careful analysis of the political context during the design phase of a Foresight exercise is essential to ensure the future impact on policy making. Foresight outcomes can only be taken onboard if they are well in phase with the policy-making process, in terms of timing, cultural compatibility and usability. The system where the exercise is embedded has to be understood as well as the one on which it is supposed to have an impact (in the case of R&D priorities this is often the same structure). Decision-making practises are usually context-specific and not codified and have to be deconstructed in order to prepare the field for the exercise to have an impact. The culture of decision-making within ministries/agencies matters for the positioning of Foresight. Also, it is very important to position Foresight within the complex process of policy strategy building and to link up with other activities Shaping within boundaries Within the relevant literature it is often emphasised that Foresight should be closely 10

11 linked to action and decision making, mainly targeting public policy (FOREN 2001). Foresight exercises are expected not only to provide information to policy but also to develop concrete policy recommendations or even to suggest precise policy instruments. Studies without connection to possible actions, purely analytical studies of possible futures, are not considered as fully-fledged Foresight (Havas 2005). While this action-oriented attitude of Foresight was clearly acknowledged in the FOR-LEARN workshops it was suggested that there may be a need to rethink the way Foresight can actually achieve change. It was felt that, especially for small countries, it does not make sense to attempt to influence the whole socio-economic framework but rather to make a stronger effort to analyse what can be shaped within this framework. To achieve a realistic impact it is crucial to reflect on the right balance between shaping the future and adapting to constraints for the target area (e.g. country, region, sector, thematic field). Through acknowledging the constraints of acting upon the future it becomes possible to focus the exercise on these aspects that can indeed be shaped thus increasing the actual space of manoeuvre. Sometimes there may be more possibilities to change than obvious at first sight, but sometimes it will also be less. To sum up, it is critical to clearly acknowledge what are the external limiting factors to ensure the achievement of a realistic impact. The more the limitations of Foresight are clarified and acknowledged, the more it can concentrate on the issues where there is actually room for manoeuvre, thereby optimising its efforts and real impacts Involvement of policy makers in the design phase Policymakers have put a strong emphasis on the joint design of the exercise between Foresight team and policy client. Although this sounds trivial at first sight in practice this is forming a major challenge. Too often Foresight practitioners are treating the policy making system as a black box with a static demand that they expect the policy client to communicate to them. On the other hand policy makers do not want to open the "Pandora box" of Foresight methodology but rather expect the practitioners to arrange the exercise to fulfil their needs without having a clear picture of what kind of needs Foresight could be addressing. Therefore it seems crucial that the joint design phase is more than just a one off consultation but that a real attempt is made to create trust and mutual understanding. Much more than communication of a pre-existing demand it should be thought of in terms of co-construction of demand Involvement of policy makers in the process Even within a "tailored" Foresight exercise it will be necessary to think about inroads to policy at different stages in order to achieve a better impact of Foresight on policy making. A basic need identified is to line up more diligently with other policy processes such as ongoing planning processes already in place. However, the most straightforward hint for easing the tension between the informing and facilitating functions could be to involve policy makers into the exercise more directly. However, how close should an exercise be to the policymaking process is a highly-debated topic. There are arguments and experiences supporting both directions: involvement of policy makers as barrier and enabler of policy impact. The two positions in the debate are summarised hereafter. If policy-makers are more intimately involved into the Foresight exercise, they become 11

12 part of the learning process and draw their own conclusion for their decision making needs. In policy-making circles, as in many other places, there is a strong not invented here effect. If the advice is coming out of the blue, it might not be understood and therefore certainly not be embraced and translated into decisions by policy-makers. They have to feel the ownership for the output and this is only possible if they are actively involved in the whole process from the outset. On the other hand, Foresight practitioners have argued that Foresight activities should be separated and even keep its distance from the decision-making process. Their independency is the only guarantee that their results can be perceived as balanced and neutral. A tight involvement of policy-makers within the Foresight process might result in steering the whole exercise into a particular direction thereby accreting the opinion some already have that Foresight and other types of policy-support instruments are all about justifying already-taken decisions (e.g. as a tool for preparing restructuring measures). This opinion is common regarding consultancy in the business sector and could only discredit Foresight activities and its outputs. Being separated from policy-making reduces the risk for the Foresight exercise to be blocked into internal conflicts or debates and smoothes the tension between short-term needs of policy decisions and the development of long-term visions. Foresight can keep its freedom for raising alternatives and finding answers to its questions (Barré 2001, Barré and Salo 2002). Finally, it has been mentioned that some special circumstances would justify even more trying to keep policy-makers out of Foresight activities (authoritarian organisations, lack of adequate methodologies to contain their influence, ignorance, topic subject of strong policy controversy). In any case it was stressed that the involvement of policy-makers into Foresight activities causes several practical difficulties. They are often not prepared to contribute their ideas as an individual but only as representing an institution and similarly other participants may try to directly transmit their messages to them instead of engaging in a free and future-oriented reflection. Therefore the involvement of policy makers will have to be carefully considered. A possible approach could be to assign specific roles to policy makers that suit their perception of their relation to the process. To wrap it up, the question would therefore not be if policy-makers should be involved into Foresight activities but how and when would be more appropriate for them to be involved. This comes back to the concept of an exercise tailored with specific phases, some with the involvement of policy-makers and some without, as discussed above. The idea was raised to develop disguised training for policy makers on Foresight in order to raise awareness about its potentials as a policy support tool. There was also a feeling among participants that policy makers need to be more open towards Foresight activities to fully benefit from them. Whether this last point is also relevant for other policy-support tools is interesting but remains open. There needs to be a clear understanding that the exercise will be of use primarily for those, either policy makers or other stakeholders, who get involved and participate. Possibly there could be a kind of collaboration contract to promote this kind of understanding from the outset. This could be further developed by e.g. including policy experts into the Foresight process to work out possible implications for actual policy making. However, most of the academic authors and participants to the workshop, along with many other researchers, do stress the need for further investigations into this issue and the refinement of their proposed 12

13 solutions Reservoir approach In many cases it will not be possible or even desirable to move towards policy implementation by adding a policy-definition phase. For many exercises the challenge is therefore to present the outcomes from the collective process in a way that they are likely to be taken up by policy making taking into account their continuously shifting nature. In these cases it was considered a good approach to conceptualise and present Foresight results more as a policy reservoir instead of giving direct recommendations for immediate action. This will limit the fear of and aversion against prescriptions that many policy makers have. This is especially relevant in some policy cultures where it is uncommon to give direct recommendations to policy makers. Furthermore the "reservoir approach" will enable uptake by different policy actors along with the evolving policy process. This way, in case of a change in the policy realm e.g. through elections, there is still a chance for the Foresight results to be used. It seems advisable not to over-emphasise prioritisation as the overarching objective of a Foresight exercise. Rather it should be aimed at the development of policy alternatives. This includes resources allocation (money and skills) and gives therefore more space of manoeuvre to integrate other outcomes such as the identification of capacities Referring to choices and values The normative dimension is important for legitimating the policy and therefore policymakers need to link future options to normative objectives, choices and values such as sustainability, or quality of life instead of pretending that this is the only possible policy. The counter example for this would be the political marketing previous to the referendum on the European Constitution in France. 5. GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP Validation of the FOR-LEARN analytical framework o Is the framework capturing the most relevant points? o Where are needs for refinement/precision? How to go forward to foster o Application in Foresight practice o Application for Foresight evaluation o Dissemination What issues should be addressed next by FORLEARN and how should they be addressed? 13